Oh one other thing: It would be really nice if we could connect directly to nodes on the same LAN (or PC!). The main issue here is determining whether we ARE on the same LAN; we can find our LAN address very easily.
Any ideas? On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:15:35PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:40:06PM +0200, Thomas King wrote: > > Dear Freenet Hackers, > > I occasionally use Freenet and I am highly interested in this technology > > (not > > only because of my studies). However, during my usage I experienced a few > > network problems due to NATs. > > > > So, I think about to apply for Google's Sommer of Code with the following > > proposal: > > - Adding STUN-support (RFC 3489) to Freenet to automatically collect NAT > > related information. These information will be used to automatically > > configure Freenet. > > We already have basic NAT hopping support (including on network IP > address detection); more will be coming... The main remaining problem is > the combination of NATs and dynamic IPs. > Proposed measures in the near future: > - Remembering the last detected address for each node across restarts > (separately from its claimed address). > - ARKs. If you can connect to one node, it can tell your other peers > what your new address is via an Address Resolution Key or similar > mechanism. > Possible future measures: > - UP&P - but I think it will only help a small minority. > - Rendezvous transports (Email, DNS, IM, etc). > > Now, with regards to STUN, this is a mechanism whereby you can contact a > well known server to discover your own IP address, and those of any > NATs, in order to do hole punching? Note that if you can contact ANY of > your peers, you can discover your IP anyway, tell your other peers what > your IP is, and connect to them... Nonetheless, STUN support does sound > useful (provided that STUN servers are widely deployed, that STUN clients > are widely deployed, and that the way Freenet uses it will not > distinguish it from other STUN clients). Is it feasible to do this in > Java? Does it require raw packets? And is there already a (java) library > out there to do it? (Less duplicated code => less bugs)! > > > - Adding UPnP-support to Freenet to handle UPnP-enabled NAT devices for a > > more > > convenient user experience. > > The big issue with UP&P is that it is far from universal. It is blocked > by default by Windows XP's firewall (from SP2 onwards), and it is often > turned off... is there a realistic chance of UP&P support helping more > than a few percent of our users? > > > > What do you think about my thoughts? > > > > Is any of the developers available to be my mentor? > > I will gladly answer any questions any would-be freenet developer has on > how the code works in order to assist them in building useful features. If > you want to apply for Google SoC then by all means do, but it looks like > there will be some competition. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Thomas King > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060424/3ad5515e/attachment.pgp>
